Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

Whether or not my system would greatly increase interest is really irrelevant to my argument.
Totally, absolutely, verifiably false.
Since 33% of the teams make the post season (10 out of 30) that would mean that all of the post season spots were clinched in mid-July.
On July 15th, 17 out of 30 teams had a 20% chance of making the playoffs, according to coolstandings.

Okay so a team that is 12 games back and buried behind 5 or 6 teams but still have a statistical chance to make it is playing extremely meaningful baseball. Besides there would be a team in that position under my system as well.

Quote:

You're more than welcome to quit watching baseball in October if you're that disinterested.

That certainly goes without saying...

Yet, they are doing very well.

What if the two best teams are in the same league?

Well that happens but those teams would have played each other 12 times over the course of the season so the team that comes out on top would go the WS and play the winner of the other league. I don't oppose the WS because each league is different and in one year the AL might be extremely strong while the NL was very weak so they could play a 7 game series to figure it out. Now sometimes a weaker team will win the WS but at least the methodology to determine the participants was much more objective and fair.

Quote:

For one, to decide which teams will participate in the postseason.
Second, to make lots of money.

Well...for one reason having half the teams each season only play 2 or 3 games would be absolutely ridiculous.

I know I was being sarcastic but really there is no reason to drag out the regular season so damn long. Why not greatly shorten it and just had more play off rounds? I mean it seems like we like to add more playoff teams so why not just cut to the chase and play a 50 game regular season, and then invite all the teams to the postseason. We start with 1 game "play in" games until we've been whittled down to 4 teams on each side then we just commence with the traditional playoffs. I mean it's really not that different than what we do now I mean we're going to have two 88 win teams in the WS this year so who cares if an 81 win team makes it? Hell we've had an 83 win champion before so what does it matter?

Quote:

To make money
[broken record]Baseball is a sport. Major League Baseball is a business[/broken record]
Lots of people enjoy the post season. People will pay money to go to playoff games. Also, most sports crown a champion at the end of the season. People like that type of resolution.

We would still crown a champion at the end of my system we'd just arrive there in a more fair manner. An 83 win team or an 88 win team should never be able to call themselves "champion." It's a bad joke. I mean for a large portion of baseball history the system I'm talking about is exactly what happened and baseball was the most popular sport in America during that time. I mean it didn't make baseball any less popular to send the teams with the best record in each league straight to the WS.

Quote:

What is baseball? What is its meaning?
It's a form of entertainment. Not sure what existential pedestal you've placed it upon.

There are a few flaws in your proposal and your thinking.

No there are not you just disagree with my thinking. But there is nothing wrong with doing things the way baseball did for most of it's history. Have two leagues, no divisions, no inter-league play, no ASG that determines homefield for the WS. 15 teams in each league, they play each other 12 times, 6 at home and 6 away, for a total of 168 games. The team at the top of each league after the 168th game goes to the World Series. Everyone plays the same schedule, everyone plays everyone else. The two best teams in baseball get rewarded with a chance to call themselves the champion. 83, 88, and 90 win teams need not apply.

The Cards maybe in some trouble now since they are going back to san francisco and the Giants have the momentum

When you are up 3-1 you have to close that out

You're right. I would bet even money on the Giants right now. The only glimmer of hope is that the Cardinals have arguably their two best pitchers ready to go, and the Giants do not. Matheny has been handling his pitching a lot better now than he did during the course of the year, and he seems to have stopped bunting runners to second with .300 hitters. I can't believe he PH Schumaker against a lefty, he's got pitchers (and grandparents) who can hit lefties better than Schumaker.

I might even think about sitting Holliday down for a day against a RH, use M Carpenter. Hollday has been hitting terribly, and that catch he made last night was the catch of his unillustrious defensuve career. You're not going to get many like that from him.

Even in a 30 team two league structure you face the possibility of inferior teams being in the post season. Could it not be the case that one of the leagues produces a 100 game winner, along with a 97 and a 96 game winner, while the other league's champion won with 95 wins? Then it would be the top winner vs the 4th best winner in MLB.

If having multiple teams in the post season is so offensive, why have a post season at all? Why should a team which won 100 games have its champion status placed in jeopardy by having to face a 97 win league champion. Why not just one 30 team league and whoever wins the most is champ with no post season play unless there is a tie?

The moment you introduce the concept of a post season, you have introduced the danger that the best team during the regular season, may not wind up world champs. All else is simply a matter of degree.

All this arguing, all these notions of what is "fair" represent another failure to recognize that we are dealing with an entertainment business concern, not something which belongs to the public with owners who are sacred caretakers. There is no such thing as an absolutely fair way to go about staging a post season, so why wouldn't the owners set it up to maximize revenues?

Even in a 30 team two league structure you face the possibility of inferior teams being in the post season. Could it not be the case that one of the leagues produces a 100 game winner, along with a 97 and a 96 game winner, while the other league's champion won with 95 wins? Then it would be the top winner vs the 4th best winner in MLB.

Something like your scenario could happen and my system isn't 100% perfect but it's better than what we currently have. True enough a 95 win team could win it's league and play a team that won 98 games over 97 and 96 win teams but that won't happen every year or even most years. What I can guarantee won't happen is that there will not be any 83, 88, or 90 win teams playing the WS. While my system can't eliminate the possibility of the the best team in baseball not winning it greatly enhances the probability while vastly reducing the possibility that a mediocre team (e.g. the 2006, and 2011 Cardinals) can win the World Series. It would also completely eliminate the chance that the two teams that tied for the 11th best record in baseball could be playing for the World Series, and that could happen this year if the 88 win Cardinals win one more game they will play the 88 win Tigers.

Quote:

If having multiple teams in the post season is so offensive, why have a post season at all? Why should a team which won 100 games have its champion status placed in jeopardy by having to face a 97 win league champion. Why not just one 30 team league and whoever wins the most is champ with no post season play unless there is a tie?

Because it's just too hard to do in baseball. We could go to a system where every team plays the other 29 teams 6 times for a 174 game schedule but I'm not sure 6 games is a large enough sample size to determine that one team is clearly better than the other. In the system I have each team in each league plays each other 12 times. But yeah you're probably right, having just one league where everyone plays everyone 6 times is the closest thing to a perfect system that you could have. However Americans love playoffs so much that I feel like my system is a compromise between what we have now, and what would be the best and most fair system.

Quote:

The moment you introduce the concept of a post season, you have introduced the danger that the best team during the regular season, may not wind up world champs. All else is simply a matter of degree.

All this arguing, all these notions of what is "fair" represent another failure to recognize that we are dealing with an entertainment business concern, not something which belongs to the public with owners who are sacred caretakers. There is no such thing as an absolutely fair way to go about staging a post season, so why wouldn't the owners set it up to maximize revenues?

Because only 8 teams get the additional post season revenues right now anyway. If we went to my 168 game schedule that gives each team in the league 3 extra home games so every team gets 3 extra games of revenue. Also under my system 6 teams in the AL: the Yankees, the Orioles, Rangers, the A's and even the Rays and Angels would have been in the running for the Pennant in the final 3 weeks of the season adding a "playoff atmosphere" for fans in those cities the final weeks. Hell whose to say that Tigers were completely out of it under my system and they would have been in playoff mode as well.

In the NL it would have been only 4 teams: the Nationals, the Reds, the Giants, and the Braves. But that gives us a nice cross section of America with the west coast, the midwest, the southeast, and the northeast all represented in the final stretch run. There would have been plenty of excitement to keep people interested coming down the stretch. The most popular league in the world (arguably) is the English Premier League and they do just fine without a playoff system. Ask EPL fans how exciting the final day of their season was last season.

Okay so a team that is 12 games back and buried behind 5 or 6 teams but still have a statistical chance to make it is playing extremely meaningful baseball.

What? This doesn't describe a team with a 20% chance of making the playoffs
Let's look at the playoff teams' playoff expectancy as of July 15th.
Yankees - 89%
Orioles - 8%
Tigers 36%
Texas - 88%
A's - 36% (9% chance of winning the division)

Nationals - 82%
Braves - 67%
Reds - 67%
Cardinals - 49%
Giants - 65%

I would say that a lot of teams that had a poor probability of making the playoffs on July 15th played some meaningful games down the stretch. Most notably the A's and Orioles.

Quote:

Quote:

What if the two best teams are in the same league?

Well that happens but those teams would have played each other 12 times over the course of the season so the team that comes out on top would go the WS and play the winner of the other league.

So under your system an inferior team can win a World Series? UNFAIR!!!!!!!!!!!11111One. You spend all this time telling me how the current system is unfair but your system is unfair as well.

Quote:

I don't oppose the WS because each league is different and in one year the AL might be extremely strong while the NL was very weak so they could play a 7 game series to figure it out. Now sometimes a weaker team will win the WS but at least the methodology to determine the participants was much more objective and fair.

I absolutely disagree.

In 1948, picked at random, Cleveland won 97 games, Boston 96 and New York 94. Your system would only send Cleveland to the post season. I'm in no way convinced that Cleveland is better than Boston and New York. A few games over the course of a season proves nothing. Besides, when Cleveland played Boston that year Enos Slaughter was out with an injury, but he played vs Boston *hypothetical Unfair!!!

Quote:

I know I was being sarcastic but really there is no reason to drag out the regular season so damn long.

No reason to drag out the regular season so damn long says the guy who's system would call for a longer regular season.

Quote:

We would still crown a champion at the end of my system we'd just arrive there in a more fair manner. An 83 win team or an 88 win team should never be able to call themselves "champion." It's a bad joke. I mean for a large portion of baseball history the system I'm talking about is exactly what happened and baseball was the most popular sport in America during that time. I mean it didn't make baseball any less popular to send the teams with the best record in each league straight to the WS.

No there are not you just disagree with my thinking. But there is nothing wrong with doing things the way baseball did for most of it's history. Have two leagues, no divisions, no inter-league play, no ASG that determines homefield for the WS. 15 teams in each league, they play each other 12 times, 6 at home and 6 away, for a total of 168 games. The team at the top of each league after the 168th game goes to the World Series. Everyone plays the same schedule, everyone plays everyone else. The two best teams in baseball get rewarded with a chance to call themselves the champion. 83, 88, and 90 win teams need not apply.

You keep addressing fairness, though you haven't shown me that your system is any more fair. However, you never address the financial impact of your system.

Also, I, as a baseball fan, don't like your system. I like interleague play. Having lived in NL only cities I enjoyed, and was more likely to go to a game (and spend money) when an AL team came to town. I enjoy the opportunity to see players from other teams. Why, Mr Commissioner, do you want to take this away from me? Why are you limiting my exposure to great players from other leagues? Why are you taking half of baseball away from me?

What? This doesn't describe a team with a 20% chance of making the playoffs
Let's look at the playoff teams' playoff expectancy as of July 15th.
Yankees - 89%
Orioles - 8%
Tigers 36%
Texas - 88%
A's - 36% (9% chance of winning the division)

Nationals - 82%
Braves - 67%
Reds - 67%
Cardinals - 49%
Giants - 65%

So in order to show me how I was wrong you show me exactly ONE team that has under a 20% chance of making the postseason. Show me the other teams with 20% or less chances of going to the postseason.

Also my system doesn't eliminate this excitement at all. A team that on July 15th that has a 20% chance of winning the league could still come back and do it.

Quote:

I would say that a lot of teams that had a poor probability of making the playoffs on July 15th played some meaningful games down the stretch. Most notably the A's and Orioles.

So under your system an inferior team can win a World Series? UNFAIR!!!!!!!!!!!11111One. You spend all this time telling me how the current system is unfair but your system is unfair as well.

But it greatly reduces the unfairness of it. It eliminates 83 and 88 win teams from the picture and will likely only apply to to teams that win 95 games or more. It makes the regular season way more important than it is currently. You can't play in a craptastic division and cruise to a 88 win season and then benefit from a postseason that basically amounts to random luck and get a chance to call yourself champion.

I absolutely disagree.

Quote:

In 1948, picked at random, Cleveland won 97 games, Boston 96 and New York 94. Your system would only send Cleveland to the post season. I'm in no way convinced that Cleveland is better than Boston and New York. A few games over the course of a season proves nothing. Besides, when Cleveland played Boston that year Enos Slaughter was out with an injury, but he played vs Boston *hypothetical Unfair!!!

Unless you were there to witness that season your opinion on the 1948 season is about as relevant and interesting as watching paint dry.

Quote:

No reason to drag out the regular season so damn long says the guy who's system would call for a longer regular season.

Because my regular season would mean something. Right now under the CURRENT system the regular season is damn near meaningless. There is no point, under THIS system, to have such a long regular season because it means next to nothing.

Quote:

You keep addressing fairness, though you haven't shown me that your system is any more fair. However, you never address the financial impact of your system.

Quote:

Because only 8 teams get the additional post season revenues right now anyway. If we went to my 168 game schedule that gives each team in the league 3 extra home games so every team gets 3 extra games of revenue.

Quote:

Also, I, as a baseball fan, don't like your system. I like interleague play. Having lived in NL only cities I enjoyed, and was more likely to go to a game (and spend money) when an AL team came to town. I enjoy the opportunity to see players from other teams. Why, Mr Commissioner, do you want to take this away from me? Why are you limiting my exposure to great players from other leagues? Why are you taking half of baseball away from me?

You can watch those teams online, on TV, cars, planes, and trains make travel possible, etc. This isn't the 1940s were you can only watch the local team so that argument really doesn't hold any water. Besides inter-league adds an extra layer of unfairness to the system. Some teams have to play the Yankees, the Red Sox (who are good most years) or even teams like the Rangers whereas other teams get to the play the AL Central.

How would you feel about a system where there are no divisions or leagues and every team plays the other 29 teams 6 times for a 174 game season and crowning the team with the best record as champion? That eliminates the flaw in my system while satisfying people like you who enjoy inter-league play so much.

Or another possibility if we want to keep the postseason and inter-league set up more or less the same would be to eliminate the divisions and have each team play each other 10 times for a total of 140 games. Each team would would also play 18 inter-league games for a grand total of 158 regular season games. At the end of the season the top 4 teams in each league play. I would get rid of the 5 game LDS and replace it with a 7 game series.

While I cringe at inter-league and a 8 team playoff pool we would eliminate some of the of the more glaring flaws in this system: the WC play in game, 83 and 88 win division winners, and really 80 something win mediocre teams in general.

Another thing that must go is the All Star game deciding homefield advantage. How much more gimmicky and bush league can you get? The team that goes to the WS with the best record should get homefield advantage just like basketball and hockey. It's asinine any other way.

You're right. I would bet even money on the Giants right now. The only glimmer of hope is that the Cardinals have arguably their two best pitchers ready to go, and the Giants do not. Matheny has been handling his pitching a lot better now than he did during the course of the year, and he seems to have stopped bunting runners to second with .300 hitters. I can't believe he PH Schumaker against a lefty, he's got pitchers (and grandparents) who can hit lefties better than Schumaker.

I might even think about sitting Holliday down for a day against a RH, use M Carpenter. Hollday has been hitting terribly, and that catch he made last night was the catch of his unillustrious defensuve career. You're not going to get many like that from him.

If the Giants win Game 6, I;m betting my November Rent on the Giants for Game 7

You will need to explain how having no post season at all is harder than having one.

Quote:

but I'm not sure 6 games is a large enough sample size to determine that one team is clearly better than the other.

Gee, do you not think so? Don't most ML seasons finish with the teams in more or less the same order as they stood after the first six games?

I keep seeing that you seem to subscribe to the mythical notion that there actually is an "absolute" champion. I have a Strat-o-Matic baseball game which when can be set up to replay entire seasons in about a minute. Each time you replay a season it begins with precisely the same set of potential variables in place, yet the replays produce many seasons with different teams having won their divisions. It requires hundreds of seasonal replays before a pattern emerges where the the teams which should win are actually winning most of the time.

So, what do we learn from this? We learn that even 162 games is no infallible way to determine a champion, therefore....what?

The what is the somewhat deflating realization that the entire concept of a sports champion is an artificial construct each year, every bit as reflective of luck within the structure as it is quality of teams.

Consequently the idea that we must arrange a post season so that it best identifies that "absolute" champion, is a non starter...because that absolute champion does not and will not exist. All sports championship teams are the products of the prevailing rules and the rules are whatever we decide that they should be, none of them right, none of them wrong, all of them expedients.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.